A general overview of the…

A general overview of the changes you propose to make is that species will only receive protection if doing so does not prevent development or the ability for people to make money. Given that the forestry and mining sectors already have an exemption from the ESA, you are simply including all other industries in that exemption. As a consequence, the only time a species, or its habitat, receives protection, is when it is not under threat, which, of course, obviates the need for legislation to protect species. Automatic protection must not be removed.

There are a number of times that the rigourousness, independence and unbiased nature of the process is referenced but ultimately decisions about protection lie in the hands of the Minister, which means that the process is not unbiased and independent. In fact, the number of aspects in the proposed changes that are at the discretion of the Minster is remarkable. Administering the legislation on a case-by-case basis is extremely flawed and is not in the spirit of legislation that defines a clear set of rules. The process of receiving protection must be independent of the Minister and the Minister's interpretation must not outweigh that of the independent committee.

By virtue of being listed as at risk, we have deemed it necessary to value the individuals of the species, in accordance with its rank. Species are listed because either habitat or individuals are few/lacking. If you only wield protection when it is absolutely critical, your legislation will only come into effect once the species has been reduced to the point of nearly being extirpated (because otherwise there are other locations in Ontario where the species can be found, despite being Endangered). Species only receive protection once they are critically endangered in Ontario, because this is the only instance when the survival of the species will be jeopardized. This undermines the SAR ranking system. Protection must continue to be granted for all Threatened and Endangered species to ensure that they do not become more imperiled.

3D: Reword: “Remove duplicative requirements by removing specific reference to posting on the government website and instead requiring that certain products under the Act be made available under the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.” Either that or explain what “certain products” are.

Species at Risk Conservation Trust: Ironically this is the same principle as a Carbon Tax. My main concern with this is that you are proposing to spend money to support protection but i) work could be done in support of species, say in the form have habitat remediation, that is then undone by an ensuing project because the habitat of a species is no longer protected, and ii) because species do not receive automatic protection, and it is at the discretion of the Minister as to whether a species receives protection, it is believable that no developer will ever actually pay any money into this trust.

4G: This statement should not be left so vague as to imply that if a Minister does not form the opinion, that the Minister does not have to consult an expert. It should be clearly stated that the Minister must consult an expert in order to form the opinion that it will not jeopardize the species.